Rex iustissimus: valdovo teismas Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje XV a. pabaigoje - XVI a.

LTMonografijoje nagrinėjama Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės valdovo teismo veikla XV a. pabaigoje - XVI a. (iki 1564-1566 m. teismų reformos ir Lietuvos Vyriausiojo Tribunolo įsteigimo): teismo organizavimas bei jo funkcionavimo mechanizmas ir naujų efektyvesnių veiklos formų paieškos procesas, valdovo teismo kompetencija ir aukščiausiojo teisėjo (iudex supremus) prerogatyva. Pristatomas valdoviškojo teisingumo modelis ir bajorų visuomenėje vyravusi „viršiausio pono“ bei teisingiausio monarcho (rex iustissimus) samprata. Daug dėmesio skiriama teismo procesui ir įrodymų hierarchijai. Atskleidžiama Lietuvoje ilgai galiojusio principo rex viva lex (karalius - gyvas įstatymas) transformacija ir virsmas maksima non rex est lex, sed lex est rex (ne karalius yra įstatymas, bet įstatymas yra karalius). Valdovo - svarbaus Lietuvos teisės šaltinio ir valstybės suvereno - juridinė galia ir jo teismo praktika tiriama kaip teisinės kultūros reiškinys, akivaizdžiai prisidėjęs prie bajorų teisės žinijos įsisavinimo ir teisinės sąmonės formavimo. [Anotacija knygoje]

ENUbi societas, ibi ius (Wherever there is a society there is Law) - is proclaimed by a maxim of Ancient Rome. The development of Law is a fundamental structural element of the social structure of a state, whereas the developments of the legal idea constitute an important constituent element of the culture of a nation. Therefore, we should not get surprised by the conclusions of the contemporary historians that the intensive modernization and Europeanization of the society of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) in the 16th century is best revealed by its mature legal system manifested by the three legal codes of the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1529, 1566 and 1588). The development of the legal idea should also be reflected in the system of the courts which was committed to ensuring the administration of justice. The works discussing the system and practice of the courts of GDL prior to the law reform taking place in 1564-1566 written in Russia in the early 20th century (Michail Jasinski, Fedor Leontovich) are denoted by the incompleteness of the research of the practice of the Lord’s Court. There were even attempts to look for the sources of the Lord’s Court of GDL in Ancient Rus’ (loanikij Malinovski). Meanwhile, the contemporary practice of GDL law history investigation in general hardly ever deals with the Lord’s Court. Therefore, the present monograph takes the surviving books of the Lord’s Court of the late 15th century and the 16th century of the Lithuanian Metrica as its background to explore this court as an institution of administering justice, there by revealing its position in the catalogue of the legal values and defining the specific standard of justice that got established in Lithuania at that time.On the other hand, the legal power of the monarch as the key source of the Law and the sovereign leader of the state along with the practice of the Lord’s Court are explored as a phenomenon of the legal culture which evidently contributed to the mastering of the body of legal knowledge by the Szlachta (the nobility) of GDL along with the formation of the legal consciousness. Chapter One ofthe monograph Rex iudex supremus explores the Lord’s Court as the supreme instance of the court. The definition of the terms used in the sources contributes to the process of its activity implementation: the location of the court, its terminology and structure. Even though the First Statute of Lithuania explicitly indicated the location of the court as the sovereign’s palace (its aula) of Vilnius Lower Castle Complex, still, the sovereign was a ‘travelling judge’ (iudex ambulans). Therefore, the current residence of the sovereign by default was the location of the court. Sometimes, when the investigation of some case had to be postponed, the writ even stipulated that the parties involved in the case had to arrive “wherever his royal majesty would happen to be present at that time.” The function of administering justice would take up countless hours of the monarch’s time. Meanwhile, the absence of some kind of schedule of the Court proceedings would pose all kinds of issues to the litigating parties. The persistent complaints of the sovereign regarding the ‘bothersome’ litigators which essentially turned into tailing the monarch in hope that he would find some time for investigating the case led to the necessity of introducing court sessions. Presumably, as early as in the late 15th century, 4 sessions of the Lord’s Court were established. However, neither the First nor the Second Statutes indicate their specific dates.It is thus likely that the sessions were not ‘fixed’, but they rather were held at a time which the sovereign found convenient to himself, with prior announcement to the interested litigating parties. However, it is evident that the systematic postponement of the scheduled sessions turned into a nightmare for both the sovereign and the litigators. When the Sejm of Vilnius of 1551 established the dates, duration and location of the first instance and appeal court sessions, the ‘grand’ session of the Lord’s Court (roki sudovyje velikije) was nominated as once per year with Saint Martin’s Day as the reference. However, this scheduling was postponed more than once, and it did not take long to introduce another session on the Pentecost. It should also be noted that the sessions of the Lords Court were being held simultaneously with the sessions of the Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The members of the Liege Lords Council would take part in them, and, should the need arise, the Grand Duke had an opportunity to seek the Councils advice. In the Privilege of 1491, Alexander Jagiellończyk (also spelt in English as Alexander Jagiellon) committed to investigating the cases together “with the lords of our council” (eum dominis de consilio nostro). The surviving documents of the Lord’s Court suggest that, as a matter offact, the instances of a case being investigated by the Grand Duke alone were actually rare as his majesty (greatness) and the etiquette would simply have not allowed that. On the other hand, the sovereign occasionally had not only to resolve a specific case but also to establish a precedent; therefore, he would need advice of the Liege Lords Council. In spite ofthat, the verdict was also worded as ‘Lords’, and the court was described as ‘[his] proper/own’ (i.e. his own court). [...]. [From the publication]

• Chartularium Lithuaniae res gestas magni ducis Gedeminne illustrans. Gedimino laiškai / tekstus, vertimus bei komentarus parengė S.C. Rowell. Vilnius : Vaga, 2003. 480 p.
• Kalbų varžybos : Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės valdovų ir didikų sveikinimai / parengė, iš lotynų kalbos išvertė, įvadą ir komentarus parašė Eugenija Ulčinaitė. Vilnius : Nacionalinis muziejus Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės valdovų rūmai, 2010. 272 p.
• Nieznana korespondencja króla Zygmunta Augusta z Mikołajem Radziwiłłem Rudym i Ostafim Wołłowiczem z lat 1550-1571 ze zbiorów Biblioteki Czartoryskich / Rafał Jaworski. Studia Źródłoznawcze. 2003, t. 41, p. 91-108.
• Pirmasis Lietuvos Statutas (1529 m.) / Irena Valikonytė, Stanislovas Lazutka, Edvardas Gudavičius. Vilnius : Vaga ; 2001. 381 p.